The Elusive Covid Antibody

The reason I haven’t posted anything here for so long is that I’ve been consumed by a burgeoning documentary project that I began shooting way back in May of last year all over Berlin…after first escaping from Poland across the only part of the border that wasn’t fenced off by a new iron curtain. More about that another time, but in the course of my endless research for the film, I decided to look deeper into the epidemiological data. Specifically, antibody testing.

In the words of the CDC, “Antibody or serology tests look for antibodies in your blood to determine if you had a past infection with the virus that causes COVID-19.”

You might think that to test for antibodies able to fight off a SARS CoV-2 infection, the antibodies you are testing for would need to be uniquely adapted to the task of fighting off SARS CoV-2. But as hard as I try, I can find no evidence that the Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody << specific >> to SARS CoV-2 actually exists. I’ve been searching for the scientific paper that explains how this SARS CoV-2 antibody was either identified or manufactured, but so far I have drawn a blank.

Given the fact that no evidence has yet been produced that “the virus” was ever isolated, and that the definition of isolation itself borders on the absurd, I suppose it’s only logical that there would be no proof of a specific SARS CoV-2 antibody either. How could there be?

I have come across a few claims of a singular relationship between a virus and an antibody, such as this 2004 study from the NIH regarding a patient who was diagnosed with SARS: “SPECIFIC immunoglobulin g antibody detected in umbilical blood and amniotic fluid from a pregnant woman“

However, in April 2020, when antibody tests were being considered “as the basis for an “immunity passport” the WHO published the following caution:

“Laboratory tests that detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in people, including rapid immunodiagnostic tests, need further validation to determine their accuracy and reliability.”

And more recently (updated March 17 2021) there’s this, on the CDC website:

“The clinical significance of IgA in SARS-CoV-2 is not yet established. How long anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persist after infection remains unknown.”

There we have an inference that a ‘SARS-CoV-2’ IgG antibody MAY exist, accompanied by an admission that nothing much about it is known or established.

I’m only a layman, not a scientist, but in all of the studies relating to the detection of SARS CoV-2 antibodies, the antibody in question appears to be the plain unadulterated Immunoglobulin G antibody. Even where an antibody test is misleadingly named as a “SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay” it turns out to be designed to detect regular IgG antibodies, nothing more or less. And according to WebMD:

the IgG antibody is “is the most common type of antibody in your blood and other body fluids.”

As I understand it, antibody tests are traditionally used to measure quantity not type and if unusual levels are found, “then this is an indication that there is SOMETHING within the body that is currently affecting the immune system“

Which seems to suggest, as with a PCR test, that SOMETHING does not mean one thing, but could mean one of many things..

In other words, the antibody test does not detect a SARS CoV-2 specific antibody. If anything, what it detects is the most common kind of antibody – antibodies that according to “the science” have been with us for millennia – that are produced for all manner of reasons – antibodies that will likely bind to any old coronavirus…and whatever else happens to be hanging around.

In tandem with the PCR test (not medically certified for diagnostic use; spits out false positives like a winning night at the roulette table) this can only mean that all clinical decisions relating to the “treatment” of a supposed infection by an alleged virus that was never isolated in the first place, are entirely based upon tests that are not capable of doing what they’re purportedly being used for.

And in turn, that can only mean that an emergency use mRNA technology called a “vaccine” which does not prevent transmission but may cause fundamental genetic changes in the body, is being pushed on the public worldwide while still in the experimental trial phase, in response to a pandemic of numbers from unreliable test results.

And acting in unison – almost as if following an invisible conductor – governments around the world are authorising this dangerous charade to “protect” public health – and to keep everyone nice and “safe.”

Really?